Battery is a promising cause of action for toxic tort plaintiffs. Nevertheless, there remains substantial controversy as to whether battery can only be applied in the case of direct interferences. Building on the principles of corrective justice, this article undertakes a critical exploration of the directness element in the tort of battery. The analysis begins by considering how the directness ought to be treated where the battery committed occurred via an environmental vector, such as wind or water. Then, using a series of thought experiments, the article ultimately argues that Canadian law should abolish the distinction between direct and indirect acts in battery in response to pragmatic and doctrinal considerations.